Plaintiff alleges in her Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"): she used Countrywide Bank, FSB for the purpose of refinancing her mortgage on September 12, 2007 (the "Current Loan"); "[o]n or about September 13, 2007, [she] exercised her right to rescind the contract, and . . . rescind[ed] the contract by . . . executing Defendant's cancellation form pursuant to Defendant's Notice of Right to Cancel[;]" "[t]hereafter, Defendants recorded the Current Loan despite Plaintiff's rescission[;]" she "became aware that the Current Loan was recorded, and expressed her rescission . . . again in a letter to Defendants dated October 17, 2007[;]" "Defendants have taken no effective steps to rescind the Current Loan[;]" and "Defendant . . . incorrectly represented that rescission was impossible[.]" (SAC ¶¶ 5-11, 14.)

Plaintiff's misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation claims are based solely on her allegations that "Defendant . . . incorrectly represented that rescission was impossible" and that this "representation was false[.]" Id. ¶¶ 35-36, 41-42.

Defendants argue these claims should be dismissed because they fail to comply with Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. (Mot. 4:4-5:25.) Specifically, Defendants contend Plaintiff "does not differentiate between Defendants" and "fails to allege 'the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged[.]'" Id. 5:12, 17-18. Plaintiff argues she has plead her misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation claims with adequate specificity since she alleges "[t]he Defendant, Countrywide, wrongfully and incorrectly represented that rescission was impossible . . . in the fall of 2007 in Stanislaus County, California." (Opp'n 4:17-20.) However, this is bare argument which does not accurately reflect allegations in Plaintiff's SAC.

Since Plaintiff has failed to allege "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations" as required by Rule 9(b), Plaintiff's misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation claims are dismissed. Swartz, 476 F.3d at 764 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Defendants argue this dismissal should be with prejudice since "Plaintiff cannot reasonably amend these claims to state a valid claim, as she cannot demonstrate reasonable reliance or damages." (Mot. 1:14-15.) However, leave to amend should be granted "unless it [is] determine[d] that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Since it is unclear whether the subject claims can be cured through amendment, Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date on which this order is filed to file a Third Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies in the dismissed claims. Further, Plaintiff is notified that any dismissed claim not amended within this prescribed time period may be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.